Balto, who now works at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, argues that recent criticism of the case is 'exaggerated and misplaced.' He notes that Intel has already lost proceedings before three other anti-trust commissions ' in Japan, Korea and the European Union ' and faces charges in New York State. He also asserts that the FTC had to act for four reasons:

Previous cases hadn't addressed Intel's efforts to thwart development of the GPU because of its threat to the CPU.

Action by the FTC can be resolved more quickly than in other courts, with a trial date now set just five months away.

By using Section 5 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the commission can respond not only to violations of anti-trust laws but to the violations of the policies that these laws were intended to promote.

AMD's settlement against Intel was largely a monetary settlement that didn't address the need to protect consumers.